Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:37.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thomas Cromwell and Ireland, 1532–1540*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Steven G. Ellis
Steven G. Ellis
Affiliation:
University College, Galway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Not the least of the duties with which Thomas Cromwell was burdened during the period of his ascendancy was the supervision of the lordship of Ireland. There the changes effected in the function and powers of the Dublin administration in the 1530s proved to be quite as important for the development of early-modern Ireland as those occurring in England during the same decade were for that realm. These changes centred on the legislation of the Irish Reformation Parliament of 1536–7 and on the termination of a policy of aristocratic delegation whereby Anglo-Irish magnates, primarily the earl of Kildare, had ruled the lordship on behalf of the king. By the later 1530s the lordship was governed through an English deputy working with a reconstituted Irish council, backed by a small English garrison, and controlled more firmly from London. For all this, recent research has established the overall responsibility of Cromwell.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 497 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Principally by Brendan, Bradshaw in ‘The Irish constitutional revolution, 1515–57’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1975); ‘Cromwellian reform and the origins of the Kildare rebellion’ in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, xxvn (1977), 69–93; The dissolution of the religious orders in Ireland under Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 43–4, 56–62, 74–5, 82, 187.Google Scholar

2 Elton, G.R., Reform and reformation: England 1509–58 (London, 1977).Google Scholar

3 Cf. Cooper, J. P. in Times Literary Supplement, i6June 1978, p. 674;Google ScholarDavies, C. S. L. in E.H.R., xciii (1978), 873–5;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJennifer, Loach in Times Higher Educational Supplement, 25 Nov. 1977,Google Scholar p. v; Conrad, Russell in Times Educational Supplement, 4 Nov. 1977, p. 21.Google Scholar

4 Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 82; Elton, Reform and reformation, pp. 206–11.

5 Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, pp. 85—6. Cf. Elton, Reform and reformation, p. 211.

6 See, for instance, Ellis, S. G., ‘Tudor policy and the Kildare ascendancy in the lordship of Ireland, 1496–1534’, in I.H.S., xx (1976–1977), 235–50.Google Scholar Cf. Lord Chancellor Inge and Bermingham C.J. to Wolsey, 23 Feb. 1528 (S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 126: ‘therll of Kildair coude help hym self, in taking advantaige of h Irishemen, better then any other here’); Storey, R. L., ‘The wardens of the marches of England towards Scotland, 1377–1489’ in E.H.R., LXXII (1957), 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Ellis, S.G., ‘Taxation and defence in late medieval Ireland: the survival of scutage’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, cvii (1977), 9–11;Google Scholar ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 244–5. Cf. Bush, M. L., ‘The problem of the Far North: a study of the crisis of 1537 and its consequences’ in Northern History, vi (1971), 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Cf.Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 240–1, 243 4, 259. The Percy earl of Northumberland adopted similar tactics in 1525–7 to recover command of the east and middle marches towards Scotland: James, M. E., A Tudor magnate and the Tudor state (Borthwick Papers, no. 30; York, 1966), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

9 Quoted in L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 1352.

10 Quinn, D.B., ‘Henry VIII and Ireland, 1509–34’ in I.H.S., xii (1960–1961), 326–30.Google Scholar

11 Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 252–4; Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, pp. 77–8, 82–4.

12 Cf. ibid. pp. 75–6, 80.

13 ibid. pp. 82–5; Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, p. 264.

14 Ellis, ‘Taxation and defence’, pp. 9–10; L. & P. Hen. VIII, vi, 318–21.

15 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 148 (cf. National Library of Ireland, D.2096 (Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 93): ‘the quietie and restfullness of his subgietes in this his saide lande… standith in the vnitie and concord of the noblis of the sayme and inespeciall of the goode vnitie and Concorde of the saied two erles of Ormound and Kildayre’); Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, p. 244.

11 Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 252–4; Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, pp. 77–8, 82–4.

12 Cf. ibid. pp. 75–6, 80.

13 Ibid. pp. 82–5; Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, p. 264.

14 Ellis, ‘Taxation and defence’, pp. 9–10; L. & P. Hen. VIII, vi, 318–21.

15 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 148 (cf. National Library of Ireland, D.2096 (Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 93): ‘ the quietie and restfullness of his subgietes in this his saide lande… standith in the vnitie and concord of the noblis of the sayme and inespeciall of the goode vnitie and Concorde of the saied two erles of Ormound and Kildayre’); Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, p. 244.

16 L. & P. Hen. VIII, v, no. 1061.

17 Trinity College, Dublin, MS 543/2, sub anno 1532.

18 L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 923 xxxi, x, no. 298; Memoranda roll, 24 Henry VIII m. 15 (St Peter’s College, Wexford, Hore MS I, pp. 1178–80).

19 P.R.O.I., CH 1/1, Statute roll, 28–9 Henry VIII c. 1 (Slat. Ire., 1, 68); S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 223.

20 See Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 83. After the failure of the experiment in appointing Richmond in 1525 as lieutenant-general in the north parts, the duke was appointed lieutenant oflreland in 1529: Reid, R. R., The king’s council in the north (London, 1921), pt. 1,Google Scholar ch. v; Quinn, D.B., ‘Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, and his connexion with Ireland, 1529–30’ in Bull. I.H.R., xii (1935), 175–7. Much more so than for his earlier appointment, however, Richmond’s responsibilities in Ireland were nominal. He never went to Ireland and acted through a series of deputies who were styled in royal letters patent as both the king’s deputy and Richmond’s: see, for example, Ellis, ‘Taxation and defence’, p. 22.Google Scholar

21 L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1014; Cat. S.P. Spain, 1534–8, pt. 1, no. 87.

22 Ormond deeds, 1509–47, app. m; Memoranda roll, 19 Henry VIII mm 2–3 (P.R.O.I., Ferguson coll., iv, fo. 120, repertory, iv, 108; William, Lynch, Legal Institutions of Ireland (London, 1830), p. 178); L. & P. Hen. VIII, vi, no. 299 iv.Google Scholar

23 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 185–6, 194, 210; Hore, H.F. & Graves, J. (eds.), Southern and eastern counties (Dublin, 1870), esp. pp. 245, 247.Google Scholar

24 The evidence for this statement issetout in Ellis, S.G., ‘ The administration of the lordship of Ireland under the early Tudors’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast, 1979), pp. 341–8.Google Scholar

25 S.P.Hen. VIII, 11, 210. Cf. Elton, Reform and reformation, pp. 201–5.

21 S.P.Hen. VIII, ii, 194–7, 207–16; Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, pp. 84–5, 86–7.

27 P.R.O., E.101/421/6, nos. 35, 36, 39; Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 264, 268.

28 Cf. Ibid. pp. 238–50.

29 Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 85; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 162–92.

30 E.g., S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 114–18, 147–50, 166, 231; Patent roll, 25 Henry VIII, art. 70 (Col. pat. rolls, Ire., Hen. VIII-Eliz. pp. 18–19; T.C.D., MS 1740, xxiii-iv); N.L.I., D.2096 (Ormonddeeds,1509–47, no 93).

31 Patent roll, 14 Henry VII, art. 15 (P.R.O.I., Lodge MSS ‘Articles with Irish chiefs…’, fo. 221; Rotulorum patentium et clausorum cancellariae Hiberniae calendarium Hibemicorum, p. 272); Slat. Ire., Hen. VII & VIII, pp. 88–91.

32 Cf. S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 108, 113, 166; Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 85, note 43; Elton, G. R., Policy and police: the enforcement of the Reformation in the age of Thomas Cromwell (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 134,Google Scholar 210–11. Possibly too the Ordinances were more comprehensive than previous sets, but we often lack the full text of earlier ordinances and some have not survived at all: see for instance Charles, McNeill (ed.), Liber primus Kilkenn. (Dublin, 1931), pp. 156–8; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 166.Google Scholar

33 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 231. For other indications that the ordinances remained, in part at least, a dead letter, see below, note 99 and cf. S.P. Hen. VIII, II, 209, 501.

34 Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 149.

35 Slat. Ire., Hen. VII & VIII, pp. 88–91; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 104–18; Richardson, H. G. & Sayles, G. O., The Irish parliament in the middle ages (Philadelphia, 1952), pp. 270–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Even in Ireland recognizances by no means remained a dead letter: cf. N.L.I., D.2096 (Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 93); S.P. Hen. VIII,ii, 122. Cf. Storey, R. L., The reign ofHenry VII (London, 1968), pp. 157–9.Google Scholar

36 Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 250–7.

37 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 194–5. Cf. Holinshed, , Chronicles (ed. London, 1807–1808), vi, 286.Google Scholar

38 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 195; Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, p. 259.

39 Bradshaw (‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 88) has suggested that Offaly was to be called ‘ to attend the Irish council where the royal pleasure was to be fully declared’.

40 The documents relating to the summons are P.R.O., S.P.60/2/159 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, no. 514); Lambeth MS 602, fos. 138–40 v (Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 84); L. & P. Hen. VIII, VII, no. 957; Holinshed, Chronicles, vi, 288; P.R.O.I., CH I/I, Statute roll, 28–9 Henry VIIIc. 1 (Stat. Ire., 1, 68). The debate turns on whether the council referred to in the king’s summons was the king’s council of England or that of Ireland. As Dr Bradshaw admits (‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 88) the purpose of a summons to attend the Irish council is unclear. It is also improbable on administrative grounds, since it would have necessitated a special commission to convoke the council which was normally convoked by the governor by writs under his privy seal. Cf. S. G. Ellis, ‘Privy seals of chief governors in Ireland, 1392–1560’ in Bull. I.H.R., li (1978), notes 15, 27.

41 Governors supported by money and troops from England had replaced Kildare in 1475–8, 1478–9, 1492–6, 1520–22 and 1530–32. In 1478—9, 1492–4 and 1520 the Irish council had also been reorganized: F. E. Ball, Judges (London, 1926), 1, 108—10, 115–17; Richardson & Sayles, IR. parl. in middle ages, pp. 168–9; Rymer, Foedera (ed. 1740–1), v, pt. ii, p. 102.

42 Quinn, ‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, p. 343; Bradshaw, ‘Cromwellian reform’, p. 72.

43 Ibid. p. 82.

44 See Ellis, S. G., ‘The Kildare rebellion and the early Henrician reformation’ in Historical Journal, xix (1976), pp. 807–30 passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 For this paragraph, see Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 260–70; ‘Kildare rebellion and Henrician reformation’, passim. The date given for Kildare’s arrest in ‘Tudor policy’, p. 260 is in error.

46 See S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 273–8; L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, nos. 357, 358, 434, 594, 600, 681; Holinshed, Chronicles, vi, 302–3; A.U., sub anno 1535.

47 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 274–5, 277, 280; L. & P. Hen. VHU IX. no. 358; Holinshed, Chronicles, vi, 302–3.

48 I hope to consider the evidence for the judicial proceedings against the rebels elsewhere. See also, Edwards, R. D., ‘The Irish Reformation Parliament of Henry VIII, 1536–7’ in Historical Studies, vi (London, 1968), pp. 62–3; Bradshaw, Dissolution, pp. 51–3.Google Scholar

49 See, in general, Edwards, ‘Irish Reformation Parliament’, pp. 59–84.

50 Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 269–70.

51 Ibid. p. 248; S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 179–80.

52 Brendan, Bradshaw, ‘The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation of the Irish reformation parliament’ in I.H.S., xvi (1968–1969), 297–8; Dissolution, pp. 52, 61–3.Google Scholar

53 L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, nos. 377, 434, 498, 594; X, no. 254; XI, no. 382 (3); Statutes of the realm, 26 Henry VIII c. 25; P.R.O.I., CH 1/1, Statute roll, 28–9 Henry VIII cc 1, 11; J. G. Nichols (ed.), Chronicle of the Greyfriars of London (Camden Soc, no. 53), sub anno 1537.

54 Bagwell, Tudors, 1, 217–20, 392. Mary, of course, also restored the Percy earls of Northumberland: Powicke, F. M. & Fryde, E. B. (ed.), Handbook of British chronology (2nd edn, London, 1961), p. 442.Google Scholar

55 Quoted in Hore & Graves, Southern and eastern counties, p. 175. See in general N. P. Canny, The Elizabethan conquest of Ireland: a pattern established 1565–76 (Hassocks, 1976), pp. 36–40.

56 It is not of course suggested that change was confined solely to these areas, but rather that these were the crucial areas for governmental reform.

57 Bradshaw, Dissolution, pp. 47–9.

58 L. & P. Hen. VIII, ix, no. 90, x, no. 1198; Stal. Ire., Hen. VII & VIII, pp. 139–42. The Irish lands of English monasteries were also included in the act of resumption, but the effect of this was merely to bring forward by a year or so their seizure by the Crown.

59 Edwards, ‘Irish Reformation Parliament’, pp. 72, 74–5; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 370–1; Stat. Ire., Hen. VII & VIII, p. 142. One pound Irish was the equivalent of one mark sterling, though both currencies were accepted in the lordship. Except where otherwise stated, moneys are expressed in pounds Irish in this paper. See also Ellis, S. G., ‘The struggle for control of the Irish mint, 1460-c. 1506’, in R.I.A. Proc., LXXVIII (1978), 17–36 esp. p. 33.Google Scholar

60 The two standard forms of taxation in early Tudor Ireland were scutages and parliamentary subsidies. The former, last levied in 1531, was feudal in origin and worth c. £200 per levy, and its incidence was of course on military tenants only, despite its contemporary confusion with militia-service scutage. The latter was collected according to a rate per ploughland of land under cultivation (fixed at 13s. 4d. in the sixteenth century), and was effectively an updated version of the danegeld with the principle of parliamentary consent grafted on. It was worth c. £550 per annum in the 1530s. See Ellis, ‘Taxation and defence’, passim; Quinn, D. B., ‘The Irish parliamentary subsidy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’ in R.I.A. Proc., XLII (1935), sect. C, pp. 219–46.Google Scholar

61 P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), no. 1310). The former total is made up as follows: ancient crown lands £500 9s. 41/2d. (including £ 145 6s. 8d. per annum from the manor and rectory of Dungarvan from Easter 1536 which was wrongly included among the lands of absentees in the account and of which £105 6s. 8d. was respited), the earldom of Kildare £894 1 iis. 73/4d. (cf. Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 111), lands of other rebels attainted £460 ys. id., lands of lay absentees £246 12s. 61/2d., lands of English monasteries £440 I6S. 101/2d., Irish monastic lands £533 13s 10d.: total £3,076 1 iis. 41/2d.

62 Bradshaw, Dissolution, pp. 56–8, 187.

63 L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 1068 (12); D.N.B.

64 P.R.O., E. 101/421/6, no. 35; D.M.B. sub Allen; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iv, no. 4758–9.

65 Agnes, Conway, Henry VII's relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485–98 (Cambridge, 1932), chs. 3–5; P.R.O., E.101/248/21; Ball, Judges, 1, 108–11, 115.Google Scholar

66 This point is in effect made by Bradshaw, Dissolution, p. 187.

67 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 224. See also Ball, Judges, 1, 115, 122–4.

68 See especially S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 33–8, 41, 104–8, 113, 126–34, 395; L. & P. Hen. VIII, iii, no. 670, iv, nos. 4264, 4302, 4933; N.L.I., D.1820, 2146, 2149 (Ormond deeds, 1413–1509, no. 243, 1509–47, nos. 130,133) These changes are discussed in Ellis, ‘Administration of Ireland’, ch. 1. Cf. Elton, G. R., The Tudor revolution in government: administrative changes in the reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1953), ch. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 See, for example, Lord Deputy Grey’s complaint in 1536 that though he had ‘by your graces letters patentes the same auctoritie that others hath had’, in practice he had ‘but the name onely of your deputie’: P.R.O., S.P.60/3/168 (L. & P. Hen. VIII, xi, no. 932).

70 Ellis, ‘Tudor policy’, pp. 246–8.

71 This point emerges clearly from Cromwell’s papers relating to Ireland. Cf. Elton, Reform and reformation, p. 209. For similar changes affecting the council in the north at this time, see Reid, King’s council in the north, esp. pp. 152–3.

72 L. & P. Hen. VIII, x, no. 1051 11.

73 Calculated from P.R.O., E.101/421/6, nos. 33, 35–6, 41–3, 45–6; L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 788, ix, no. 513, xi, nos. 381, 934.

74 Cf. L. & P. Hen. VIII, viii, no. 788.

75 S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 455–6, 510; Moody, T.W., Martin, F.X. & Byrne, F.J. (eds.), A new history of Ireland, iii (Oxford, 1976), 44–5.Google Scholar

76 L. & P. Hen. VIII, vii, no. 788.

77 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xii (ii), nos. 379–82.

78 S.P. Hen. VIII, 11,496–502,507–10,519,521; Hore & Graves, Southern & eastern counties, passim.

79 Edwards, ‘Irish Reformation Parliament’, pp. 74, 76; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xiii (i), no. 684.

80 L. & P. Hen. VIII, XII (ii), no. 1318, xiii (i), nos. 22, 497, 606, 610, 641, 684.

81 E.g. Bradshaw, Dissolution, p. 182.

82 Edwards, ‘Irish Reformation Parliament’, pp. 74, 76; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xiii (i), no. 684.

83 For example, compare the fees allowed in Brabazon’s account, 1534–7, with those current during Edward I’s reign: P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2; Charles, McNeill (ed.), ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard's notes’ in Analecta Hibernica, 11 (1931), pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

84 L. & P. Hen. VIII, XII (ii), nos. 1097, 1318, xiii (i), no. 641; S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 422–6, 499.

85 Calculated from P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2; Cat. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 176. Cf. Elton, Tudor revolution in government, ch. 3.

86 See Ellis, ‘Taxation and defence’, pp. 18–19; Canny, Elizabethan conquest, p. 32.

87 E.g. S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 101, 113, 138.

88 Elton, Reform and reformation, p. 210.

89 The government did not, for instance, attempt to dissolve the religious foundations in these areas until 1541–3: Bradshaw, Dissolution, ch. 8.

90 See the totals for each county of the monastic extents of 1540–41 in White, N. B. (ed.), Extents of Irish monastic possessions, 1540–41 (Dublin, 1943), p. 376. By 1540–41, the rental from the monastic lands alone beyond the Pale stood at a nominal £1,001 10s. 41/2d. in 1533–4, the total revenue accruing from beyond the Pale cannot have exceeded £200: P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2.Google Scholar

91 P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2; S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 289–90, 295, 297, 301, iii, 111—18.

92 Ferguson’s extracts from the Memoranda rolls, P.R.O.I., MS iA 49 136 passim, which include notes from the proffra membranes for 22 terms between 1517 and 1543. This evidence, admittedly partial, is discussed more fully in Ellis, ‘Administration of Ireland’, app. v and chs. 4, 7 passim.

93 See, for instance, S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 112–16; Hore & Graves, Southern and eastern counties, passim.

94 Bagwell, Tudors, i, ch. 12.

95 For example, L. & P. Hen. VIII, xi, no. 259 iii; S.P. Hen. VIII, 11, 281–6, 288, 301–4, iii, 6, 20, 25, note 1.

96 For instance, S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 39, 49, 64, 155, 156, iii, 20, 25, note 1; L. & P. Hen. VIII, v, no. 688 iii.

97 Printed in Hore & Graves, Southern and eastern counties, pp. 62–76, 87–93, 97–136 184–93, 198–208, 215–20, 232–52.

98 S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 117.

99 E.g. Ormond deeds, 1509–47, no. 267: ‘althoughe there haue bene dyvers orders devised and some put in prynt for the reformation of the said extortions [sc. coign and livery and other Irish impositions] and in otherwise at sundry tymes proclaymed and the said Syr Edmunde [Butler] sworne and bounde for performaunce therof, yet the same was in manner noo while kept on the partie of the said Syr Edmunde and in moche inviolatid by the said Syr James [Butler].

100 Moody, Martin & Byrne (ed.), New hist. Ire., iii, 87; Canny, Elizabethan conquest, pp. 141–53.

101 For an excellent discussion of this problem in an earlier period, see Robin, Frame, ‘Power and society in the lordship of Ireland, 1172–1377’ in Past & Present, no. 76 (1977), 3–33.Google Scholar

102 E.g., S.P. Hen. VIII, ii, 157–8; Nicholls, K. W., Gaelic and gaelicised Ireland in the middle ages (Dublin, 1972), p. 19; Moody, Martin & Byrne (ed.), Mew hist. Ire., iii, 7.Google Scholar

103 Quinn, D.B., ‘Ireland, 1460–1534’ in Moody, , Martin, & Byrne, (ed.), New hist. Ire., ii (Oxford, ?1981), passim.Google Scholar

104 Elton, Reform and reformation, pp. 207–11.

105 Moody, Martin & Byrne (ed.), New hist. Ire., iii, 20, 25–6, 31, 33–5.

106 S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 112–13, 138, 146–7. Their conduct in Wexford was alleged to do more harm than good.

107 Ibid. II, 337–40.

108 P.R.O., S.P.65/1/02. This is an estimate of the revenue leviable, based on the king’s rights as at Michaelmas 1537: it is not an estimate of actual receipts 1536–7 and excludes various exceptional windfalls noticed below.

109 S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 6.

110 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xvi, no. 777; P.R.O., S.P. 65/1/2.

111 Ibid, xvi, no. 777, xviii (i), no. 553 (2).

112 The goods and chattels of traitors (including Kildare's, worth only £106) were worth £502 3J. 6d., which suggests widespread evasion of this aspect of the attainder; monastic goods were worth £244 os. gd. and a fine on O'Connor was worth £200: total £946 41. 3d. Repairs and improvements on the king’s lands over a period of two and a half years cost nearly £650. Since the size of the army in Ireland was reduced from 700 to 340 in September 1537, a further £2,500 must be allowed for wages for 1536–7: cf. L. & P. Hen. VIII, viii, no. 788, xii (i), no. 1027.

113 White (ed.), Irish monastic possessions, p. 376.

114 L. & P. Hen. VIII, xvi, no. 777.

115 S.P.Hen. VIII, iii, 6, 85, 92, IOI, 138, 143, 188, 193.

116 Ibid, iii, 163, 187, 195.

117 E.g. S.P. Hen. VIII, iii, 188.

118 See especially, Frame, ‘ Power and society in the lordship of Ireland’, pp. 3—33. Dr Frame’s characterization of the lordship as ‘a localized marcher society with a weak public authority and correspondingly strong ties of kinship and lordship’ (p. 22) is even truer of the late medieval period.

119 The value of the attainders is calculated from the following data: receipt from Kildare’s lands 1536–7 £894 1 iis. 73/4d. (including lands in Cos. Cork, Tipperary, Kilkenny and Lecale, worth 40 marks altogether, but excluding lands in Co. Limerick, valued at £38 7s. 71/2d. by extent in 1540–1, which were detained from the crown), their value by extent in 1540–1, £947 is. I1\2d. (including those in Limerick, but excluding those in Cork, Tipperary, Kilkenny and Lecale, since alienated); receipts from other lands forfeited in 1536–7 £460 7s. id., plus £6 6s. 8d. the value by extent in 1540–1 of the lands of three more traitors not charged in 1537. Total £1,452 2s. 6d., less £207 3s. 4d. (issues of rents and for the countess of Kildare’s jointure): £1,244 19s. 2d. See P.R.O., S.P.65/1/2, S.C.I 1/934; Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 111. I have ignored a total of £174 8s. 4d. in lands to which the crown had the reversion: cf. L. & P. Hen. VIII, xviii (i), no. 553 (2). For an indication of the value of the Kildare affinity to the earl prior to the rebellion, based on his rental book (now B.L., Harleian MS 3756), see Ellis, S.G., ‘The Kildare rebellion, 1534’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, Manchester, 1974), pp. 179–83.Google Scholar

120 Brendan, Bradshaw, ‘The beginnings of modern Ireland’ in Brian, Farrell (ed.), The Irish parliamentary tradition (Dublin, 1973), pp. 76–7.Google Scholar

121 Col. Carew MSS, 1515–74, no. 176; L. & P. Hen. VIII, xviii (i), no. 553 (2); White, D. G., ‘The reign of Edward VI in Ireland’ in I.H.S., xiv (1964–1965), 208.Google Scholar In the 1540s, the Irish deficit to be made good by subsidies from England was running at c. £4,000 a year; it rose to £50,000 under Edward VI, and settled down to just under £20,000 in the 1560s: ibid. p. 208; Canny, Elizabethan conquest, p. 37. With such sums at his disposal, any competent medieval governor would have achieved results.

122 White, ‘ Reign of Edward VI’, p. 208.

123 P.R.O., S.C.I 1/934, 935, S.P.65/3/2; White (ed.), Irish monastic possessions, passim.

124 For example, by right of various royal grants, the eighth and ninth earls of Kildare carved a lordship with a rental of over £150 a year out of the old earldom of Ulster in the early sixteenth century. Previously the earldom had yielded nothing, and its value to the crown after 1534 was less than half of this. In 1540, parts had been let for £52 13s. 4d. a year and other possessions were valued at £27 6s. 8d., but for the three years 1537–40 a total of only £132 was received and a further £64 was in arrears. Calculated from Quinn, D. B., ‘Anglo-Irish Ulster in the early sixteenth century’ in Proceedings of the Belfast Natural History Society, 1933–1934, PP 56–78 and documents there cited.Google Scholar

125 Davies, C.S.L. in E.H.R., xciii (1978), 874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

126 Professor Quinn has argued elsewhere (‘Henry VIII and Ireland’, p. 318 and passim) that down to 1534 Wolsey and Cromwell had to contend, more so than in England, with Henry VIII’s own ideas about the government of Ireland. Evidently this continued throughout the 1530s, and it may tentatively be suggested that whereas there was comparative agreement about the need to reform England and the range of options available, the question of Ireland was more controversial.